The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not take any particular measures to believe that, after the instant elevator was rejected in a regular inspection, the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government issued an order to suspend the operation of the instant elevator and issued a mark to suspend the operation of the instant elevator.

Therefore, the defendant did not have intention to violate the Elevator Safety Management Act, and did not know that the defendant should not operate the elevator of this case even before the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government issued an order to suspend the operation of the elevator.

B. The judgment of the court below on the defendant's sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the head of the Korea Elevator Safety Management Institute: (1) on July 25, 2013, on the ground that the regular inspection of the elevator of this case on July 25, 2013, the regular inspection of the elevator of this case conducted a disposition failing to pass the elevator of this case on the ground that the situation of the increase in the elevator of this case and the installation of an opening-out prevention device and an opening-out prevention device was poor; (2) on July 30, 2013, the inspection report stating the above failure disposition was notified to the defendant; and (3) on the ground that the above inspection report provides that the person who operated the elevator of this case who failed to pass the inspection on the elevator of this case shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine; and (4) on September 13, 2013, the defendant continued to operate the elevator of this case until the suspension of operation by attaching a sign on the elevator of this case.